Has there been an ice age?

In the following lines, we are going to study the Ice Age, which as a concept is not very old. It wasn't thought about much in the 18th century, just like the theory of evolution was not widely known then either. Instead, this theory gained ground in the 1840s when two researchers, Charpentier and Agassiz, tried to explain the forms of the Alps by the theory and later expanded it to apply to the whole of Northern Europe. In fact, it is amazing that this theory emerged almost at the same time as Darwin's ideas about the origin of species. Both of these theories gained simultaneous attention in the society of that time.

    It is thought that there have been several Ice Ages on Earth. It has even been said that such hot and tropical regions as the Sahara and Africa, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Australia, India, Madagascar and even South America (this is shown in e.g. the books "Jääkausi" (Ice Age) / Björn Kurten and "Muuttuva maa" / Pentti Eskola) would have been covered by a large continental ice sheet, i.e. tens of millions of years ago. The last Ice Age is supposed to have started "only" about 500,000 years ago and ended 10,000 years ago. In this case, the glaciers on the earth's surface are assumed to have covered 55 million km2 and the thickness of the ice should have been more than 3 km at most (about 1.8 miles).

   What should we think about the Ice Age? Have we any reason to believe in it? Maybe the signs that have been interpreted as signs of an Ice Age were caused by something else? We will now study the mystery of the Ice Age.

1. What causes an ice age?

The beginning of an Ice Age is simple in principle: a sudden fall in global temperatures and a significant increase in rainfall are required.

   With regard to the drop in temperature, it has been thought that there was a great climate change at the time, which would have lasted for hundreds or thousands of years, during which the air temperature would have dropped by about 4-6 degrees. (A book on the development of the Finnish Nature, Suomen Luonnon Kehitys by Matti Sauramo, p. 19, says that in Western Europe that is nowadays warmer than Scandinavia, the temperature was about 8 degrees Celsius lower than now.) Similarly, it has been thought that the amount of precipitation was much higher than at present, so that the Ice Age could have occurred.

   However, both of these ideas, the 4-6 degree drop in temperature, as well as the supposed increase in precipitation, have their problems. This is shown by the following examples:

Decrease in global temperatures. If we assume that the temperature would have dropped by 4-6 degrees, it must be said that this would not do much to help in the emergence of the Ice Age, but the temperature should decrease by at least 15-20 degrees. For if there is now a two- to three-week heatwave with temperatures of 30 degrees during the summer, then even if 20 degrees were subtracted from this, the remaining 10 degrees would usually be enough to melt away the snow accumulated during the winter in just a couple of weeks. (In Helsinki, Finland, the mean temperature in July is 17 degrees Celsius and in June and August more than 15 degrees, but it does not mean that it would always be the same steady temperature. On some days, the temperatures can rise to 25 or 30 degrees Celsius.)

   Therefore, a much more important factor in the creation of an Ice Age is cooler summers, not colder winters. The summers should constantly be so cool that the snow would not have time to melt. If this prerequisite is not fulfilled, no Ice Age can begin.

Significant increase in rainfall. The second prerequisite for the beginning of an Ice Age is a significant increase in rainfall. There should be much more rain than now. A mere decrease in temperature cannot cause an Ice Age; enough rain is also required.

     The implementation of this matter, too, is problematic in practice. Because if the temperature was lower in the past, it would have radically reduced the amount of precipitation rather than increasing it. It would have gone just the opposite. This is due to two factors which are:

• The colder climate would have caused both evaporation and rainfall to be reduced. It has been estimated that a drop of 12 degrees Celsius in the temperature would reduce the humidity in the air to half, also decreasing the rainfall. Colder air would not have promoted an increase in rainfall; on the contrary, it would have prevented it.

• The effect of a colder climate would have resulted in an expansion of the ice on the sea (Of course, lakes, brooks, and rivers would also have mainly been covered with ice, and water would not have flowed into the sea or evaporated into the air). The expansion of the ice cover on the oceans would have reduced evaporation and therefore rain, because there would have been a reduced amount of free water from which water could have evaporated. This decreased rainfall would thus have made it very difficult for an Ice Age to begin, and it is also difficult to imagine how even the current levels of rainfall would have been possible. On the contrary, the amount of rainfall should have radically decreased and been much lower than at present.

Various theories. Even though the beginning of an Ice Age seems to be impossible in itself, there have been theories of what could have caused it. Four main theories have been presented:

1. Change in the axis of the Earth: a sudden movement of the axis of the Earth to another position.

2. Movement of continental platforms. According to this theory, the movement of continental platforms could have moved large areas to the Arctic zones.

3. A theory which is based on the changes of the Earth's orbit, according to which changes in the division (but not the total amount) of solar radiation to the Earth would have caused small changes in temperatures.

4. One alternative theory is based on changes in solar radiation or changes in the atmosphere due to volcanic dust and gases so that radiation could not have properly entered the surface of the Earth.

1. A change in the axis of the Earth. One theory for the beginning of an Ice Age is that the axis of the Earth suddenly moved to another position.

   The problem with this theory, however, is that it does not explain the coldness that is believed to have prevailed throughout the Earth during the Ice Age, not just in certain regions.

   (In the books “Jääkausi” (Ice Age) by Björn Kurten and “Maanpinnan muodot ja niiden synty” by Iivari Leiviskä and in other books, the idea comes up that the southern hemisphere, such as Patagonia in South America, New Zealand and the islands of the South Sea, have had a cold season and glaciers at the same time as in North America, Siberia and Europe.)

   For it is believed that during the so-called Ice Age, the whole globe – including the southern hemisphere – was colder than usual, not only a few areas. If the axis were to move, it would cause cold temperatures in only certain areas while the other areas would be warmer than before.

    Björn Kurten has explained the matter in his book "Jääkausi" (p. 35). He shows that a change in the Earth's axis cannot explain the coldness prevailing on the entire Earth at the same time. A mere change of axis and poles could not cause cold to all areas at the same time:

In popular writings, we can find a theory about how the axis of the Earth suddenly moved to another position, meaning that the North Pole was in Siberia (or any other place that is needed to explain the formation of continental glaciers). This would have then started an Ice Age in Siberia. Unfortunately, if this was the case, the United States would have changed into a tropical area, and yet geological evidence shows that North America and Eurasia were simultaneously covered with continental ice (and in addition to this, ice fields appeared at the same time both in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere).  In this context, therefore, the theory of pole displacement is useless. Admittedly, paleomagnetic studies show that the poles have clearly moved, but the transition has been extremely slow, and it is quite obvious that the North Pole has been in the basin of the Arctic Ocean, at least since the earlier Tertiary period.

2. The movement of the continental platforms. Another theory explaining the Ice Age is based on the movement of the continental platforms. There are the following problems with this theory:

• Even though the continents could move, they certainly could not just take off and wander anywhere. People have not been able to properly explain what the energy would be that would move the continents over long distances. 

   Björn Kurten has described this theory in his book Jääkausi (Ice Age):

Another theory is based on the movement of the continental platforms, and according to it, the movement of the Earth's crust moved large areas towards arctic coldness. But even though the continents have moved during the geological period, there is no reason to assume that they have moved randomly somewhere. The roots of the Earth's mountain ranges are extraordinarily deep; they reach deep into the mantle. The lower surface of the earth's crust  is more uneven than the upper side, and so the continents are strongly anchored into the mantle below them. If the continents move, it is because the mantle is moving, and we have already noted what a slow process this is.

• One problem with the theory is that the continents should have moved thousands of kilometers back and forth in a couple of thousand years! This is because during the latest Ice Age (it has been assumed that it was about 500,000 to10,000 years ago) there should have been at least three or four warmer periods. This would mean that the continents must have wandered back and forth many times. They must have wandered from their original places and also come back, for the climate to become colder and warm up again. The notion that such rapid changes could really happen puts the continental drift theory in a questionable light. That certainly cannot be true of the last supposed Ice Age. 

• Another problem is that the latest Ice Age is assumed to have ended just 10,000 years ago. Such a short period is not enough when we think about the movement of the continents. People generally have to admit that the latest Ice Age cannot be connected with continental movements. The Continents had to have been in their current places.

3. Changes in the Earth's orbit. The third theory – as presented by M. Milankovitch – is based on changes in the Earth's orbit. According to this theory, periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit cause small changes in the distribution of radiation on the surface of the Earth.

   However, a problem with this theory is that changes in the Earth’s orbit would hardly change the yearly temperatures locally. Also, they would not decrease global temperatures. Some months might, of course, be a bit cooler but others would then be warmer. The changes would not happen in overall temperatures. Many claim that these changes would not have had any meaning for the beginning of an Ice Age.

   In his book Jääkausi (Ice Age) Björn Kurten describes the weaknesses in this theory:

However, all these factors together do not in any way reduce the total amount of radiation the Earth receives from the Sun. They affect only the distribution of radiation on the surface of the Earth. Roughly speaking, they can be said to act in such a way that at any latitude, either in the northern or southern hemisphere, the amount of radiation in summer either decreases or increases, and in winter the effect is the opposite.

   How, then, does this affect the climate, so much so that it can lead to glaciations and interglacial periods? Indeed, many researchers strongly deny the whole possibility. They are of the opinion that the temperature differences thus caused are extremely small. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that even very minor variations can bring about great changes over time...

   But the effect was supposed to be quite different in the southern hemisphere, almost opposite. However, there is clear evidence that glaciation has occurred simultaneously in the north and south. How can it be explained on the basis of astronomical theory?

4. Changes in solar radiation on the surface of the Earth.  Another alternative is based on the fact that some changes in the atmosphere took place because volcanic dust and gases prevented solar radiation from getting through to the Earth. There are the following problems with this idea:

• There is no evidence that solar radiation decreased so decisively that the temperature of the Earth dropped radically. Several astronomers criticize this theory. In addition, the decrease and increase of solar radiation should have taken place several times in history, because there have supposedly been several Ice Ages. This makes this theory even more problematic.

• As far as atmospheric dust and gases are concerned, it is very difficult to understand how they could have frozen a large part of North America, an area of about 15 million square kilometers (surface area of Canada is 9.98 million square kilometers), a large part of Eurasia and many places having warm climates.

   Even if some kind of a dense cloud were formed it would also have had another kind of effect: it would have raised the temperatures during the nights and in the winter because it would have prevented warm air from escaping. Thus, the effect of this kind of a cloud is not always unequivocal.

• If there has been the aforementioned cloud of gas and dust, it is difficult to understand how such a cloud would have lasted in a heap for hundreds and thousands of years. Shouldn't it have been affected by water and air circulation?

• All clouds that block radiation and that are known to astronomers have too sparse a structure to have any great effect. Therefore, a cloud that prevents radiation for millennia seems impossible as a theory.

Other PROBLEMS. There are also other problems that come to light when it is claimed that there was an Ice Age. We can mention the following:

Movement of ice. One of the effects of the Ice Age is supposedly movement of ice. It has been thought that the ice would have moved hundreds or even more than a thousand kilometers on the earth's surface, and that at the same time they would have carried large boulders with them. (The book Maapallo Ihmeiden Planeetta, p. 192, proposes the idea that some stone blocks moved with ice for over 1,200 kilometers [745.6 miles.])

    However, one can ask how the 3 km (1.8 miles) thick ice mass could have moved. For if the ice mass had traveled more than 1000 kilometers (621.3 miles), shouldn't it also have progressed over uneven terrain and uphill? That is, if there can be insurmountable uphills in a distance of just one kilometer, there are even more in a distance of more than 1000 kilometers (621.3 miles). What power could have pushed ice like this even uphill? Was there really any movement of ice at all? Even in the mountains, the ice does not go up, against the laws of nature, but its direction is always down, if it can usually move. On a journey of over 1,000 km (621.3 miles), such movement would certainly be impossible.

   Keijo Parkkonen has dealt with the problem in his book Sadan vuoden harha-askel (p. 20) - a book that deals with the non-existence of the Ice Age:

Ice Age teachers suggest that the ice began to slide from northwest to southeast, as the runes on the rock tell us. The ice mass, which is three kilometers thick, has an enormous weight. For every kilometer it weighs an equal amount. In order for such a mass to move, some force would be needed that would be able to push it. Where could the force be found to set this mass of millions of tonnes lying on uneven ground in motion?

   The theory of moving ice was tested in the Antarctic by using explosives to get the ice to move. The experiment came to a sorry end because the ice did not move even one millimeter, except when it fell in pieces into the water. Glacier currents have often been used to explain Ice Age theory. However, glacial currents have nothing to do with the Ice Age, as they never go uphill, carrying large boulders as they go.

Rising of ground. One example that is used to prove the existence of an Ice Age is the rising of the ground that occurs, for example, on the coast of Finland. It is said that the ground rises because the weight of the ice is gone and the crust of the Earth can rise back to its normal levels again.

   But is the rising of the ground a good proof of the Ice Age? If that were good evidence of an Ice Age, then why is rising of ground commonly observed even in areas that shouldn't even have been under ice? There are several such places on Earth where the ground rises all the time, even though it is not assumed that there has even been ice. How can these risings of ground be explained, because in the Ice Age they cannot be explained? It is therefore necessary to look for some other reason for these risings, which are found in both assumed and non-assumed Ice Age areas.

   Another reason to doubt rising of ground as evidence for an Ice Age is that rising does not even occur uniformly in all areas that are supposed to have been under ice. In many areas, on the contrary, ground subsidence is occurring and the sea is gaining ground from the land. For example, in Denmark, the ground sinks about a millimeter a year. It can also be proven that in historical times the sea has gained ground along the shores of the North sea, Germany, Holland, and the English Channel. Most of the North Sea is an ancient coastal plain that has been taken over by the sea. (Information from the book "Muuttuva maa", Pentti Eskola, p. 42). So, if the Ice Age is true and the rising of the ground is one of its evidence, there should be no such inconsistency. But why does it occur?

End of the Ice Age. One problem is the end of the Ice Age, how the ice would have melted away. Because if the thickness of the ice was more than 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) and if the temperature drops by about 5-8 degrees per kilometer (the most in summer), shouldn't it have been almost always freezing at these altitudes?

   The snowline, where there is everlasting winter, is actually quite low in many areas. The next list shows how low these snowlines are (information from Maanpinnan muodot ja niiden synty by Iivari Leiviskä, p. 206):

• In Spitzbergen 450 meters (0.2 miles)

• In Norway, in the Ofoten fjord region 1,100 meters (0.6 miles)

• In Norway, Bergen 1,250 meters (0.7 miles)

• In the Pyrenees in Spain 2,800 - 3,000 meters (1.7 - 1.8 miles)

• In the Alps 2,400 - 3,200 meters (1.5 –1.9 miles)

• In the Caucasus Mountains in the west 2,700 meters (1.6 miles) and in the east, where the climate is drier, 3,800 meters (2.3 miles)

• In equatorial regions, the height of the snowline in Ecuador is 4700 - 4800 meters (2.9 –3,0 miles) and in Africa on Mount Kilimanjaro, 5380 - 5800 meters (3.3 - 3.6 miles). Note that in the surrounding areas of Mt. Kilimanjaro, the annual average temperature is almost 30 degrees Celsius (86 F) and the day temperature is over 40 C (104 F).

The examples above show us that height plays an important role. If we go high enough, the snow won't melt anymore. Also, the tendency of white snow to reflect back the radiation coming into it would make it even more difficult to melt the snow. The ice sheet below it would not shrink so easily.

    The question is, that if there was an Ice Age, what melted it? Especially in the northern regions, where the snow line can be below 1500 meters, melting would have been problematic. (For example, in the book "Jokamiehen Geologia", p. 94, the thickness of the continental glacier is presented to have been as 2500 to 4500 meters / 1.5–2.7 miles.). It is almost as big a problem as what caused the Ice Age.

Ice Age in the Sahara? One assumption related to the Ice Ages is that they are supposed to have prevailed in several current hot regions - after all, this was already stated earlier. It has been suggested that such areas as the Sahara, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Ethiopia, Australia, Brazil, India, Madagascar and South America would have been in the throes of an Ice Age, and that Africa would have been covered by a huge continental glacier.

    However, the idea that an Ice Age could have prevailed in areas that are so close to the hot equator is hard to believe, because no definite reason for the origin of Ice Ages has been found anyway. What would have been the factor that would have frozen these areas, which now have an average annual temperature of almost 30 degrees (86 F)?

    Perhaps one explanation for the matter is that the signs interpreted as an Ice Age are caused by some other event, e.g. the Flood mentioned in the Bible and in the folklore of nations. This seems like a much better option than the Ice Age theory. We will look at this alternative later.

2. The evidence points to a warm climate, not a cold one

It is a rather common view that there was an Ice Age in the Earth's past.It has been talked about how animals and people have lived in cooler conditions than now and shivered from the cold when permanent winter has prevailed on earth. Similarly, it has been talked about how the current northernmost regions and southernmost regions were even colder than at present and that there was a thick ice cover on their surface.

    But does this perception match the facts? If we look at the matter in the light of the following facts, they show the opposite. They show that the Earth experienced a warmer, not a colder climate. This is demonstrated by the following findings:

• Palm and fruit trees have been found in Antarctica as well as in Greenland, Alaska and Siberia, which would not be able to thrive in the current conditions. Tropical plants and fern fossils from Antarctica have also been found in these areas.

• Stone and lignite deposits found in Canada, Svalbard, Greenland and other currently cold regions are a sign of earlier lush vegetation

• Corals that only live in warm seas have been found in the Norwegian Sea, Svalbard and polar regions.

• Mollusks and corals, which are typical Mediterranean species, have been found in the North Sea

 •Millions of fossils of animals including crocodiles, lions, antelopes, camels, sheep, cows, rhinoceroses, horses, mastodons, musk oxen, and numerous mammoths have been found in the arctic areas of Siberia and Alaska. These large animals would not have found food and water if the climate had been cold.

• Very well-preserved dinosaur mummies have been found in Alaska, a couple of hundred kilometers north of the Arctic Circle. Likewise, dinosaur discoveries have been made in Greenland and Antarctica. In order for these animals classified as cold-blooded to have been able to thrive, the climate must have been warm and not cold at the time.

THE DATING OF CLIMATE CHANGE. When plant and animal fossils suggest that the climate used to be warm even in the current Arctic regions, the next question is how long it will be since this warm period. And in general, having answered this question, it has been said that there would have been at least hundreds of thousands or millions of years since this warm period.

   However, there are a few facts that clearly show that a warm climate prevailed on Earth only a few millennia ago. The following arguments are in favour of this:

Ross seabed sediment samples. When the sediment samples from the bottom of the Ross Sea in Antarctica were studied,  it was noted that the cold phase or the "Ice Age" started in this area only about 6,000 years ago, which is much less than the hundreds of thousands of years that are usually presented. Keijo Parkkunen has explained in his book (Sadan vuoden harha-askel, p. 24, 25) an article from a magazine that is related to the matter:

C.H. Hapgood, professor of history and anthropology, gives interesting facts about Antarctica in his article "The Changing Earth's Crust" in the Sunday Evening Post of 10.1.1959.

   "Using the radiocarbon method, scientists rechecked the end time of the last Ice Age, and according to it, only 10,000 years have passed since then, instead of the previous 30,000 years.

   This observation gave reason to doubt the basic principles of the system the geologist Charles Lyell, who lived in the 1800s, created. He presumed that geological events such as water and snowfalls, erosion and the stratification of sediments, had in the past progressed at their current speed. (…) During the late Ice Age these geological events would have greatly quickened their speed. There must have then been some factor in effect that does not exist now. Another new method of dating the age, which we call the ion method, has also greatly shocked people when it has been used to determine ages from the sediment findings from the bottom of the Ross Sea: it has appeared that during the last million years, the Antarctic has melted several times (...) After dating these drillings from the sediment, it was observed that the latest Ice Age in the Ross Sea began 6,000 years ago."

   The observation that the Ice Age of the South Seas began only 6000 years ago is a real bomb. For once, the scientist directly approached the facts. This statement has such a great point of reference for understanding things that it is downright shocking. There were no glaciers in Antarctica until 6000 years ago. Fruit and palm trees have been found in Antarctica, as well as in Greenland and Siberia. It is thought that there is oil and coal in Antarctica. 

Ancient maps. It can also be concluded from ancient maps that cold climate conditions have not prevailed for a very long time.  We can see this from two maps from the 1500s which were prepared by Piri Reis and Oranteus Finaeus and which are both copies of some earlier maps – maybe dating to the Antiquity period.

   Both of these maps show the current continents with their peripheral areas and are quite consistent with the modern maps especially in the north-south direction, even though the east-west direction is not so accurate. However, what is special with these old maps is that both of them show the coastline of the Antarctic as unfrozen, even though it now is almost completely covered with ice. This shows that there was a time in the fairly recent past when there was no ice cover.

   In addition, when seismic measurements have been made of the Antarctic coastline and Greenland, these maps have been found to be quite consistent with the measurements. The shapes of both maps match what has been found out about the shape of the earth's surface under the current glacier. The conclusion is therefore that the current glacial areas cannot be very old, but that they must have formed only during the last few millennia. These maps are one proof of that.

Practical observations. We can also see in practice that the current climate in the arctic areas is not necessarily from ancient times. Airplanes that were left in Greenland during the Second World War have become covered with ice to a depth of 40 to 100 meters (43 to107 yards) in less than 60 years. This number means almost 1 to 2 meters (1 to 2 yards) per year. Similarly, in Antarctica, it has been observed that a 17-meter antenna has been covered in ice already in 30 years, which is quite a fast pace.

  As far as the current levels of rainfall are concerned, they are enough to explain the formation of an ice field in quite a short time. Greenland gets around 400 mm (15.7 inch) of rainfall a year, which will be even more when it turns into snow, even if part of it were to melt. The current rainfall is quite sufficient for the accumulation of the glacier in a short time. It does not need hundreds of thousands of years to be born. The following article tells more about the subject:

   The American fighters desired by the expedition have been buried in eastern Greenland near Tasiilaq since 1942. The planes that lost the Allied during the war are now covered by a layer of eternal snow and ice that has already grown to almost a hundred meters.

   (…) In practice, the expedition will be able to reach the American planes inside the glacier by thawing a 100-meter vertical shaft in the snow and ice cover.

   (…) The Americans already used the thawing method to lift one fighter up in 1992. At that time, the plane was under an ice layer 80 meters thick. Today, the P-38 in question has been restored and flies at aviation shows around the world under the name Glacier Girl.(Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 14 January 2007)

3. An ice age or the Flood?

When it comes to the Earth's past, the Ice Age or Ice Ages are thought to be an integral part of it.

    However, there is another option that could be behind the signs interpreted as an Ice Age: the Flood. Next, we will examine this matter in the light of a few such points.

• No good theory has been found that properly explains the origin of Ice Ages. Continental movement theories, radiation reductions and other theories are such that weaknesses can be shown in each of them or they have not been proven in practice.

 • Stories about the flood. One piece of evidence supporting the Flood is ancient records from all around the world that also include descriptions of the Fall of man and the confusion of languages in Babel. On the other hand, there are no ancient records of an Ice Age or humans descending from apes.

• Warm climate. When the Ice Age and cold climates have been assumed to have prevailed in the northern hemisphere, there are clear signs of a warm climate in the same areas, however. This shows that there may not have been an Ice Age.

• The burial of large animals such as mammoths is difficult to explain in any other way than that they were buried under mud and sludge during the Flood. At least five million of these animals are buried in the ground, which shows the full extent of the catastrophe.

   If we assume that the Ice Age or some other phenomenon was the reason for the devastation of these animals, it does not explain how they could have been buried inside icy ground during the Ice Age. It certainly would not have happened.

• Potholes. The formation of potholes (and ridges) has often been attributed to the melting glacial waters during the Ice Age. However, it is more probable that these peculiarities of nature are connected with the Flood. The water masses during the Flood would have moved more powerfully than the slow-flowing meltwaters of the Ice Age.

   As the speed of flowing water increases, the ability of water to transport things also increases. For example, the flood in Johnstown in May 1889 is said to have been so powerful that the current moved twenty iron locomotives for almost 1 km (0.6 miles) and one of them was buried so deep that it could not be found. (p. 182, Kaikkeuden sanoma by Wiljam Aittala)

• Ancient shorelines have been used as a sign that the glaciers melted and the water was high, covering the current dry areas. E.g. in Finland there are several signs of ancient shore lines, and the so-called Lake Ancylus and the Baltic glacial lake are thought to have covered Finland and its surrounding areas after the Ice Age.

   However, it is more probable that these ancient shorelines are the result of the Flood. Researchers are right that water did cover these areas, but it was an effect of the Flood, not of the melting of ice lakes. This is also supported by the fact that these ancient shores and marine animal fossils are found on all the highest mountains and dry areas around the world. The Ice Age could not have done this.

• The rising of the ground has also been used as one piece of evidence proving the Ice Age, as was mentioned above. The same theory has been used to try and prove the formation of mountains from former sea beds, because fossils of marine animals have been found on slopes of mountains.

   As we stated, however, the rising of ground cannot be used as evidence of the Ice Age because it is not consistent around the world.

    As for the idea that all the mountains were once seabeds, which would then have risen, this is hard to believe. In fact, all high mountains should have risen then, because fossils of marine animals can be found in all of them - the Himalayas, the Andes, the Alps, etc. The fact that all of these would have risen from the former seabed is quite incredible. Surely a better explanation is the Flood mentioned in the Bible.

   However, it is possible that if the amount of water on Earth has suddenly increased due to the Flood, it could very well have caused movement in the earth's crust and volcanic activity. Great trenches such as the Mariana Trench, which is about 11 km (6.8 mi) deep, and the rise of mountains can also be the result of this. These types of phenomena - if they have generally occurred - are at least difficult to explain with any uniformitarianism, but the Flood that plunged down from the atmosphere could cause such a thing.

   In connection with this, it is good to bring up continental drift theories. It is often explained that everything has happened slowly over millions of years, but it doesn't have to be that way. It is interesting that the developer of continental drift theory, Alfred Wegener, is said to have initially started to develop his theory based on the Bible, when it tells about the division of the earth (Genesis 10:25, the literal translation tells about the division of the earth at a certain time. King James says: "In his days was the earth divided). Thus, when there has been movement in the earth's crust, it has not had to take millions of years, but a disaster like a flood and the related aftermath have been able to cause movement at a fast pace: the movement of continents, emergence of trenches and rising mountains are such phenomena. In the following quote in Finland's largest newspaper, reference is made to how geologists believe that the continents separated from each other in a single tear:

The fracture line of the great rift valley extends from the Great Lakes region of East Africa through the Red Sea to the Jordan Valley, where the deepest crack in the earth's crust, the Dead Sea, is almost 0.4 kilometers below sea level.  Nowadays, it is thought that the Horn of Africa will tear away from Africa in the future. It is interesting that the rift between, what came to be South America and Africa, is regarded to have happened rapidly during a catastrophic phenomenon, in the same way that the rift of the Red Sea is regarded as a sudden phenomenon. In the bay of the Red Sea, there are deep depressions where the water temperature is around 50 degrees Celsius due to the thinness of the earth's crust. Africa and Asia broke away from each other in one fell swoop and did not wander apart slowly, as was previously thought. The Red Sea was created in one single rip, say geologists Goman Omar and Michael Steckler in Science magazine (Helsingin Sanomat 25/11/95) 

• The ridge formations of Salpauselkä. When we’re talking about Salpauselkä, we’re talking about the around 600 kilometer long ridge formations of Finland. The most common explanation for their origin has been that the climate cooled millennia ago, when the melting of the continental glaciers stopped and large piles of gravel piled up on the edge of the glacier. This is how ridges were formed, which contain about half of Finland's sand and gravel.

   However, Risto Isomäki has questioned this common viewpoint in his new book Miten Salpauselät syntyivät? [How were the Salpauselät formed?] (2015). He does believe in Ice Age, but based on his research he speculates that the ridge formations of Salpauselkä were formed during a period, when the melting of the ice sheet was at its fastest, and not during a period, when the melting had stopped. He specifically suggests that water affected the formation of the ridges. He doesn’t believe in the Flood, but his remarks are in accordance with the fact that water has greatly shaped the nature:

According to an oft-cited calculation, Salpausselät contains about half, or about 20 billion cubic meters, or 20 cubic kilometers of Finnish gravel and sand. The estimate appears to have taken into account only those deposits that could be exploited economically. The assessment immediately raises an interesting question: why would two two-hundred-year-long periods during which the continental ice sheet did not melt produce as many deposited piles of sand and gravel as a few thousand years, during which the continental ice sheet melts? Shouldn't the largest piles of gravel and sand associated with melting arise, on the contrary, when the glacier is melting fastest and the flows of meltwater rivers are at their highest? (Risto Isomäki: Miten Salpausselät syntyivät?, p. 37)

Another interesting observation that Risto Isomäki came across is related to Greenland. While it has generally been explained that ice masses during the Ice Age have transported large boulders over hundreds of kilometers, this has not been observed to happen in Greenland, where there is now a continental ice sheet. Rocks are very rare on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet and inside the ice. Stones can move, for example, in the steep ice streams of the Alps, because the rocks have first broken away from the mountains and then fell on top of the ice streams, but in Greenland this has not been observed to happen. Risto Isomäki explains:

The surface of the iceberg, which has been standing for a long time, is extraordinarily complex, filled with caves and cavities and other forms created by alternating melting and freezing... The surface of icebergs born in late summer is often brown-gray and dirty. The surface of the iceberg, which has turned around, is clear and smooth. The water has melted away all the details. I haven't seen a single rock, not even a small chunk, let alone a large boulder, in the ice of the icebergs that have turned around. The ice of the icebergs that have turned around does not even show gravel or sand, but the ice is always shimmering clean and white, or sometimes blue, turquoise or translucent. According to the Greenlanders, this is a clear general rule, although there are exceptions.

The ice glaciers that flow towards the sea of the continental ice sheet, i.e. the ice streams and the icebergs that break from them, carry with them rocks, gravel and sand, but it is only found on their ground floor, almost never on the surface or in the middle. On the surface of the iceberg there is only dead algae, as well as dust and soot brought by the winds. Rocks are very rare on the surface of continental glaciers. Even so rare that in vast areas of the ice surface the only rock found is usually a meteorite.

One of the basic assumptions of the old Salpausselkä theory was that large amounts of moraine have also been transported on the surface of the continental ice sheet and inside the ice. In fact, Salpausselkä have been assumed to have originated largely in this way – that is, from rock and gravel carried on and in the middle of the ice. However, continental glaciers do not actually work this way. (Risto Isomäki: Miten Salpausselät syntyivät?, p. 80).

So what can be concluded from the boulders? The most likely explanation for their movement is water. Above was an example of how the current carried twenty iron locomotives with it for almost a kilometer. Similar activity may also have occurred during the Flood that was much stronger than a single flood.

• Furrows in the rocks. One of the most important evidence of the Ice Age has been considered to be the furrows in the rocks. They are believed to have arisen when stones carried by ice scratched the surface of rocks and earth. However, the furrows in the rocks can be explained in other ways, without ice. Namely, when in 1980 the St. Helens volcano erupted and mudslides and landslides came as a result, they made furrows in the rocks that completely resemble the furrows considered to have been created by the Ice Age. Thus, no ice was needed for the furrows, but mudslides and landslides produced similar patterns (Tas Walker: ST. Helensin tulivuoren opettamaa, Luominen-lehti, numero 31 [Tas Walker: What ST. Helens can teach us, Luominen magazine, number 31])

   The St. Helens disaster series in 1980 was also significant in other ways. It showed how deposits that were more than a hundred meters thick arose in a few days and weeks. E.g. A sedimentary deposit along the North Fork Toutle River, with a thickness of 8 meters, formed in just 3 hours on 12.6.1980.

   In addition, in this series of disasters, canyons were formed, smaller than the Grand Canyon, but otherwise similar. Thus, these canyons did not take millions of years to emerge, but were formed in a matter of days.

More on this topic:

The Bible and history. There is tremendous evidence for biblical events and the historicity of individuals - including Jesus. Check out this evidence

The early stages of mankind. The first 11 chapters of the Bible are real history. This includes creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the mixing of languages. Read here

The Flood. There is ample evidence for the historical nature of the Flood in nature and in human tradition. Read how much evidence there is

Can we trust in Criticism of the Bible? Bible criticism and liberal theology are contemporary phenomena. However, critics have a naturalistic preconception that is not based on science and facts

"The Bible isn’t historically reliable"

Josephus' book War of the Jews and biblical history. The same people and events mentioned on the pages of the Bible also appear in other sources. Read what the historian Josephus has written

Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the history of the Bible. The same persons and events mentioned on the pages of the Bible also appear in other sources, such as the Old Testament apocryphal books. Read more here